Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   WTF is wrong with people
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(2)
Message 154 of 457 (707947)
10-02-2013 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Faith
10-02-2013 1:12 PM


Re: Back on topic
New phenotypic variations emerge when you have new gene frequencies or allele frequencies, will you allow that much? And will you allow that this only occurs in an isolated subpopulation, because if it occurs in the larger population the changes will get rapidly diffused or absorbed?
And would you allow that if the whole population absorbs a change that the whole population evolved a bit or was changed a bit.
You say these phenotypic changes are found WITHIN a population, whereas my examples have been exclusively of new populations formed apart from a former population. But in either case you have to have reproductive isolation in order to get identifiable variations in the phenotype in an identifiable subpopulation, so this would have to be the case within the larger population wherever this is happening, by some form of sexual selection on the part of individuals within the population perhaps.
or even geographical isolation
My claim is that you ALWAYS have reduced genetic diversity as compared with the previous population when you get a new phenotype characteristic of a whole new population and all the more so as that new phenotype gets classified as a new "species."
But that does not happen your argument is WRONG.
You accept mutations, what is stopping mutations in these new species, every mutation increases genetic diversity, a neutral mutation does it, a bad mutation does it, and so do good mutations. Mutations are random they dont turn the species back to its parrent species, they make the new species more diverse. Or even produce a NEW NEW species.
But I'm concerned with a whole population formed with that new trait, because that's what a new "species" is and if new "species" aren't forming it isn't evolution
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...-skink-live-birth-eggs
Lizards who before layed eggs are now giving birth A NEW TRAIT A WHOLE POPULATION OF THEM NOW HAPPY ??
. If such a new subpopulation forms within a larger population then what I started out describing would pertain, that trait would have to be passed on to other individuals but the preservation of that new mutated trait would still require the reduction of genetic diversity in that subpopulation with respect to the larger population to establish it as part of the whole population's new phenotype. So, EVEN IF you get increased genetic diversity by mutations, the establishment of a new SPECIES containing the new trait formed by mutation still requires the reduction in the genetic diversity of the new population or you will not have microevolution at all, OR evolution at all.
Why do genomes just stop mutating, no new gens, no more deletions of old gens, no more duplications of old gens ... It all just stops?
Then when you HAVE the new phenotype you preserve it by preventing the introduction of alien alleles from the other phenotypes.
Yes many factors do this inclouding natural selection, if the new phenotype is better then the old one.
As a new phenotype it adds to the number of phenotypes with respect to the greater original population; once you have it with respect to itself it's just one phenotype. You really are having trouble following this, and in a way I can't blame you, it's counterintuitive in many ways, not to mention that I may not be saying it as sharply as it needs to be said. But it IS you not getting it.
So counter intuitive i dont get what you are saying.
It doesn't interfere with GETTING them if you don't already have a new species established, but it interferes with preserving one that's developed or developing, destroying the very supposed basis for macroevolution, and that's what I had in mind although it may not have been expressed clearly enough.
HOW is it destroying it is a species just a SPECIFIC genome, or a different variations of a simmilar genome. A new species with with little genetic diversity has only a few genomes in its population almost identical. But with every new member in the population the diversity increases where once yoou had 10 genomes almost identical you now have 11 and because of mutation it is also a bit different. As the population grows these differences exponentially increase increasing genetic diversity. And yes new speciation events can accure the new new specis can also have a low genetic diversity, but in the samw way it increases its genetic diverysity again.
I don't believe genetic diversity actually increases anyway in a stable population, that would take an influx of new individuals of that species; mutations don't have enough of an effect to accomplish that, most of them being deleterious, so few of them conferring any kind of benefit at all let alone being selected for it.
How do you know most mutations are deleterius? When all observations made by science shows that most are neutral some are deleterius and some are enhancing.
You get an influx of new individuals all the time its called REPRODUCTION. AND NO INDIVIDUAL IS A 100% copy of their parents. IT HAS GENS NEITHER OF THEM HAS AND WHEN HE BREEDS THOSE GENS GET PASSED ON TO HIS CHILDREN THEY POSSES THESE NEW GENES BUT ALSO HAVE SOME NEW ONES OF THEIR OWN.
So if a wolf was borne in a pack that had a mutation making him stronger he would not pass this trait on because a weaker wolf would be the one fathering all the new children?
In nature its usualy the best strongest and healthiest individuals who are the fathers of the next generation. They fight for females, they haveto survive till breeding season. An individual with a deleterius mutation has a slim chance of fathering a single offspring let alone multiple. An individual with a good mutation has a better chance of fathering more children as he can fight off more rivals who want to reproduce. So a deleterius mutation is selected against, while a good one is selected for. NATURAL SELECTION. http://postfiles10.naver.net/...542eIY8u_GIF/ringspecies.gif[\img]
My claim is that you ALWAYS have reduced genetic diversity as compared with the previous population when you get a new phenotype characteristic of a whole new population and all the more so as that new phenotype gets classified as a new "species."
But that does not happen your argument is WRONG.
You accept mutations, what is stopping mutations in these new species, every mutation increases genetic diversity, a neutral mutation does it, a bad mutation does it, and so do good mutations. Mutations are random they dont turn the species back to its parrent species, they make the new species more diverse. Or even produce a NEW NEW species.
But I'm concerned with a whole population formed with that new trait, because that's what a new "species" is and if new "species" aren't forming it isn't evolution
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...-skink-live-birth-eggs
Lizards who before layed eggs are now giving birth A NEW TRAIT A WHOLE POPULATION OF THEM NOW HAPPY ??
. If such a new subpopulation forms within a larger population then what I started out describing would pertain, that trait would have to be passed on to other individuals but the preservation of that new mutated trait would still require the reduction of genetic diversity in that subpopulation with respect to the larger population to establish it as part of the whole population's new phenotype. So, EVEN IF you get increased genetic diversity by mutations, the establishment of a new SPECIES containing the new trait formed by mutation still requires the reduction in the genetic diversity of the new population or you will not have microevolution at all, OR evolution at all.
Why do genomes just stop mutating, no new gens, no more deletions of old gens, no more duplications of old gens ... It all just stops?
Then when you HAVE the new phenotype you preserve it by preventing the introduction of alien alleles from the other phenotypes.
Yes many factors do this inclouding natural selection, if the new phenotype is better then the old one.
As a new phenotype it adds to the number of phenotypes with respect to the greater original population; once you have it with respect to itself it's just one phenotype. You really are having trouble following this, and in a way I can't blame you, it's counterintuitive in many ways, not to mention that I may not be saying it as sharply as it needs to be said. But it IS you not getting it.
So counter intuitive i dont get what you are saying.
It doesn't interfere with GETTING them if you don't already have a new species established, but it interferes with preserving one that's developed or developing, destroying the very supposed basis for macroevolution, and that's what I had in mind although it may not have been expressed clearly enough.
HOW is it destroying it is a species just a SPECIFIC genome, or a different variations of a simmilar genome. A new species with with little genetic diversity has only a few genomes in its population almost identical. But with every new member in the population the diversity increases where once yoou had 10 genomes almost identical you now have 11 and because of mutation it is also a bit different. As the population grows these differences exponentially increase increasing genetic diversity. And yes new speciation events can accure the new new specis can also have a low genetic diversity, but in the samw way it increases its genetic diverysity again.
I don't believe genetic diversity actually increases anyway in a stable population, that would take an influx of new individuals of that species; mutations don't have enough of an effect to accomplish that, most of them being deleterious, so few of them conferring any kind of benefit at all let alone being selected for it.
How do you know most mutations are deleterius? When all observations made by science shows that most are neutral some are deleterius and some are enhancing.
You get an influx of new individuals all the time its called REPRODUCTION. AND NO INDIVIDUAL IS A 100% copy of their parents. IT HAS GENS NEITHER OF THEM HAS AND WHEN HE BREEDS THOSE GENS GET PASSED ON TO HIS CHILDREN THEY POSSES THESE NEW GENES BUT ALSO HAVE SOME NEW ONES OF THEIR OWN.
So if a wolf was borne in a pack that had a mutation making him stronger he would not pass this trait on because a weaker wolf would be the one fathering all the new children?
In nature its usualy the best strongest and healthiest individuals who are the fathers of the next generation. They fight for females, they haveto survive till breeding season. An individual with a deleterius mutation has a slim chance of fathering a single offspring let alone multiple. An individual with a good mutation has a better chance of fathering more children as he can fight off more rivals who want to reproduce. So a deleterius mutation is selected against, while a good one is selected for. NATURAL SELECTION.
Edited by frako, : No reason given.
Edited by frako, : No reason given.
Edited by frako, : No reason given.
Edited by frako, : No reason given.
Edited by frako, : No reason given.
Edited by frako, : No reason given.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Faith, posted 10-02-2013 1:12 PM Faith has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 156 of 457 (707951)
10-02-2013 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Faith
10-02-2013 1:12 PM


Re: Back on topic
Since reading cant convince you perhaps you can take a bit of time and look at a video that shows what testing is done and why evolution is fact.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Faith, posted 10-02-2013 1:12 PM Faith has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(2)
Message 213 of 457 (708077)
10-04-2013 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Diomedes
10-04-2013 12:37 PM


Re: What's wrong!
Psychological projection
"Psychological projection was conceptualized by Sigmund Freud in the 1890s as a defense mechanism in which a person unconsciously rejects his or her own unacceptable attributes by ascribing them to objects or persons in the outside world. For example, a person who is rude may accuse other people of being rude."
For the layman, also known as the 'I know you are but what am I' defense.
Dosent apply here Science is built on objectional observation of reality creationism and other religions are built on personal "observations" of reality
A scientist who forges data to fit his personal view is sooner or later found out and kicked out. A religious person who reads his religious text to fit his own views is usually followed by others with the same views. There are currently 21000 denominations of Christianity because every so often someone comes along and reads something in a different way. (you know evolution LOL )
There are rarely more then one explanation or theory in science for a particular observation, but even when that happens, scientists just use both theories depending where they are applicable. And we are doing our best to prove the theories wrong. So that we get to the one that is not wrong.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Diomedes, posted 10-04-2013 12:37 PM Diomedes has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(1)
Message 216 of 457 (708083)
10-04-2013 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Faith
10-04-2013 12:57 PM


Re: More or less a summary perhaps
Mutations are considered to be accidents, and if they ever produce a viable beneficial allele it would be very rarely, and the research that supposedly proves that they do is not convincing.
The E. coli long-term evolution experiment is an ongoing study in experimental evolution led by Richard Lenski that has been tracking genetic changes in 12 initially identical populations of asexual Escherichia coli bacteria since 24 February 1988.[1] The populations reached the milestone of 50,000 generations in February 2010.
Since the experiment's inception, Lenski and his colleagues have reported a wide array of genetic changes; some evolutionary adaptations have occurred in all 12 populations, while others have only appeared in one or a few populations. One particularly striking adaption was the evolution of a strain of E. coli that was able to use citric acid as a carbon source in an aerobic environment.[2]
E. coli long-term evolution experiment - Wikipedia
Not convincing enough for you sure nothing is if its does not agree with your ASSUMPTIONS.
Edited by frako, : No reason given.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Faith, posted 10-04-2013 12:57 PM Faith has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(1)
Message 217 of 457 (708084)
10-04-2013 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Faith
10-04-2013 12:57 PM


Re: More or less a summary perhaps
And yes, this whole topic has been way off topic all along. I've enjoyed it myself.
Actually you kept it on topic the whole time

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Faith, posted 10-04-2013 12:57 PM Faith has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(1)
Message 226 of 457 (708107)
10-04-2013 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Faith
10-04-2013 7:35 PM


Re: Now a real summary: evolution is dead but evolutionists don't know it
Yea its been fun watching you ignore everything we said, ignoring examples of mutations that you claim dont exsist, provided examples of beneficial mutations that you claimed dont happen. Even shown you how insane your statement is that evolution ends when you get to a certain point, because magically mutations (or as we call them additions of new genes, deletions of old genes, duplications of old genes, retro viral implantations, chromosome duplications, chromosome fusions ...) what stop happening i dont know you never said.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Faith, posted 10-04-2013 7:35 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Faith, posted 10-04-2013 7:59 PM frako has replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 228 of 457 (708109)
10-04-2013 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Faith
10-04-2013 7:59 PM


Re: Now a real summary: evolution is dead but evolutionists don't know it
It doesn't matter. All that could happen, as I just said, and it isn't going to do anything more than provide the stuff that gets selected and isolated to form a new "species" and that always requires losing genetic diversity, and that's where evolution comes to a halt, mutations or no mutations.
You never explained how a mutation in child of the new species is not an increase in genetic diversity. this is where evolution continues . You have a new species filling a whole new nieche possibly outcompeating the old species multiplying and with every new member new mutations increase its diversity. why do mutations suddnely stop in this new species or what.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Faith, posted 10-04-2013 7:59 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Faith, posted 10-05-2013 12:19 PM frako has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(2)
Message 403 of 457 (708834)
10-15-2013 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 401 by Faith
10-15-2013 12:44 AM


Re: Contribution of Drift
Evolution is not science, it's an unevidenced speculation that has acquired ironclad status despite its unprovability.
Yea its just that every new field of science that even touches evolution lends support to evolution.
What do you know about retro viral insertions?
Its when a virus like say HIV embeds itself in the genome of say an egg cell that is later fertilised the dna of the virus stays fixed in the genome of the offspring, the offspring then passes it on to his offspring ....
It would make no seance to find retro viral insertions in the same place of the genome of different species unless they where related. And yet that is what we find and they conform PERFECTLY to the evolutionary tree of life
Human endogenous retrovirus K (HERV-K) insertions in identical chromosomal locations in various primates
The only explanation for this is common descent or evolution
If you want to falsify this then go and find some retrovirus insertions in the same location in other spices so that they do not fall in such a neat line of common descent. Like say the HERV-K insertions in dogs.
Edited by frako, : Provided example of falsifiability

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 401 by Faith, posted 10-15-2013 12:44 AM Faith has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(1)
Message 414 of 457 (708870)
10-15-2013 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 404 by Faith
10-15-2013 11:19 AM


Re: Contribution of Drift
Interesting that all anyone does now is throw accusations at me, or in Frako's case a completely new topic;
Well it was pointless to argue with you on that cause you cant see reason so i decided on a new approach. So i decided to show you actual physical evidence that has only one possible explenation common descent.
Clearly there's no point in my continuing here, but I do have at least another post I want to make.
Yes because we show you examples of beneficial mutation as soon as you think we forgotten that you go back to your no beneficial mutations claim.
And I can assure you that I understand evolution as well as the average person who has ever thought about evolution.
Ok then explain what is evolution i asked you this right at the beginning of this thread and you claimed by who Darwin or Dawkins, at the time proving my point that you dont know what a theory is or what the theory of evolution is.
e have been bombarded with it all our lives and many have taken time to think about it at least occasionally
Yes there are also people who devoted their lives to the study of evolution and every single one of them knows that if they manage to disprove it they get fame and fortune.
which I did quite a bit when I still believed in it before I became a Christian.
What where you before an atheist, did you come from a secular family or did you belong to a different religion.
And I'll also say again since I haven't said it in a while that the science that is done in the name of evolution is often good science, but what it supports is always microevolution and never macroevolution.
But there is no such thing as micro and macro evolution there is only evolution
Is the retrovirus since that has been done good science? And does it deal with micro or macro evolution? I would like to hear your explanation on how retroviruses just happened to insert themselves in the same exact spot on the genome in so meny different "kinds", common descent explains that how does creationism do it.
I do like that Jutland cattle study, it really does support my own theory here, very nicely.
Yea well its the study of breeds or what you would call micro evolution so id be surprised if it wouldn't.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 404 by Faith, posted 10-15-2013 11:19 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 415 by Faith, posted 10-15-2013 7:13 PM frako has not replied
 Message 418 by Faith, posted 10-15-2013 10:23 PM frako has replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(1)
Message 417 of 457 (708876)
10-15-2013 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 416 by Faith
10-15-2013 7:55 PM


Re: Frako's Msg 86 list of proofs of evolution
Speciation: Microevolution, nothing that supports the ToE.
Yea and we are back to how much change do you need to see
Either microevolution or something else peculiar to one celled creatures.
Yea anything but macro
Back to the question how much change do you need to see?
going form SINGLE CELLED calcification to something well technically something new i guess isnt enough
Mutations occur, but what's the benefit of a gene duplication?
Um try reading the whole sentence dont QUOTE MINE ME
quote:
and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur." (Zhang et al. 2002)
and if you red a bit further you would find an example of JUST gene duplication being beneficial
quote:
Yeast adapts to a glucose limited environment via gene duplications and natural selection
No way to judge what this is about.
Yea it fits with the quote you quote mined
Unicellular creatures have their own peculiar genetics.
I guess your 2 doctorets on epigenetic and genetics qualify you to say that while every other layabout quasi scientists disagrees with you. When they turn in to multicellular organisms as the example way above do they still have their own peculiar genetics or does that change?
Either a genetic mistake that didn't do much of anything (except perhaps reproductively cut off the new "species" from the old?), or some form of microevolution, certainly nothing in support of the ToE.
Yea the same chromosome fusion mistake or mutation that probably separated us from other Hominidae, all other homineds have 24 chromosome pairs we have 23 pairs, if you lay a chims 2p and 2q end to end it is identical to our chromosome 2.
Explenation 1:The first is that we share a common ancestor with chimps and that, during the course of evolution, chromosome fusion has taken place.
Explenation 2: the deisgner, god, zeus, or Yahweh was a prick and really wanted to test mans faith so he designed the second human chromosome to look like it was a fusion of 2 from other primates even leaving the telomires in the middle that are normally only found at the ends of chromosomes.
And what did the de novo genes DO if anything?
They add to the genetic diversity of the species. I dont have the time or the will to read trough the whole thesis to find out if they actually looked at what the gene did and if it was beneficial neutral or deleterious. Only to get an answer like yea those fast reproducing small creatures like flies have their own peculiar genetics.
Not going to comment on one celled creatures since they do things in some way peculiar to themselves.
Yea they reproduce very fast and that is causing trouble for creationists because that means they evolve faster. The Escherichia coli long-term evolution experiment reached a milestone of 50 000 generations in 2010.
You cant breed cow's enough times in a persons lifetime to see that much change thats the only difference.
Doesn't sound healthy to me.
yea well loads of species do fine or better with multiple sex chromosome systems.
Maybe a true beneficial mutation, but boy are they RARE.
Does not matter how rare because they stay in the population while deleterious mutations dont.
Now that you final accept that beneficial mutations happen, dosent matter how rare they are, do you accept that over time if we say had 4.5 billion years to play with that they would accumulate and change a species beyond simple variation, or micro evolution.
And im still gonna ask how do you explain those retro viral insertions? Is god testing our faith and making species look like they follow common descent. Because the only explanation other then common descent is its a miracle.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 416 by Faith, posted 10-15-2013 7:55 PM Faith has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(1)
Message 422 of 457 (708885)
10-15-2013 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 418 by Faith
10-15-2013 10:23 PM


Re: Contribution of Drift
However, haven't there been some who have studied it extensively and devoted their lives to the science who have come to see it as false, even written books against it but do NOT get fame and fortune?Or if they do they don't get it from the scientific community, which remains untouched by their new insights.
Ok name a few please. And do double check who they are and what they said, you dont want to lie like the discovery institute. when they published a list of scientists that reject evolution.
Since you probably wont watch, the vast vast vast majority of the people on the list had nothing to do with evolution some of them where park rangers, electricians...
To my mind this goes to demonstrate that the whole thing is far from science and really just a matter of belief and opinion, something that can't be definitively pinned down because it's all unproven speculation etc. If someone does see through it there is no way for them to actually prove their case either. It's always a matter of hoping to be persuasive about some vague plausibilities. That's the case on both sides of the debate in the end.
Ok same as above name a few ....
My parents sent their four offspring to church just because it was the thing to do and a way to get us out of their hair for a while on the weekend. They themselves went only on the holidays and for special occasions. Neither of them was an atheist but they certainly weren't believers either. They might as well have been secular but they didn't preach that point of view either. It was a teacher in high school who aggressively ridiculed Christianity that turned me into an atheist, which I remained for the next thirty years. During which I also believed in evolution and read articles about it from time to time.
To bad the teacher dint teach you about evolution
I believe I've demonstrated on this very thread that that is false, that there is a natural genetic barrier to macroevolution. Thought I'd bold that because I have the impression you didn't bother to read much of what I wrote anyway. On this thread or any of the others where I've pursued the same argument.
Yea i read every reply you made to me in none did you explain what happens when speciation accures do mutations stop, every mutation is an increase in genetic diversity of the new species a good, a bad ,and a neutral one.
I don't know. I stick to the topics I feel I can best argue and I believe I've shown that macroevolution is impossible, in which case all the other unanswered questions just have to be left for later.
Well if macro evolution is impossible how do we get identical retro viral insertions in identical places of the genome of different species. If the species are related this is simple to explain common descent. If macro evolution is impossible as you say then the only explanation is MAGIC. A god that would place such false evidence of evolution in our genomes and then demmand that we believe that animals where created in kinds or go to hell is an evil god.
Since you claim not to understand this evidence let me try to explain
here is the image again:
It shows a phylogenetic tree of several primates, including humans. The arrows designate the relative insertion times of the viral DNA into the host genome. All branches after the insertion point (to the right) carry that retroviral DNA - a reflection of the fact that once a retrovirus has inserted into the germ-line DNA of a given organism, it will be inherited by all descendent's of that organism.
finding retro genes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry.
But of course this is something you will never understand because there is no argument against this. How can random insertions be present in the same place of the genome in different species. And only in the ones that evolutionists claim are related. Well i dont understand that so il just ignore it.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 418 by Faith, posted 10-15-2013 10:23 PM Faith has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 423 of 457 (708887)
10-15-2013 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 420 by Faith
10-15-2013 10:47 PM


Re: Reasons why this thread is due for Summary
Newton Gravity
A law that is wrong, dosent work for mercury we needed an Einstein for that.
Harvey Blood Circulation
Yea a theory
Germ theory Pasteur
Yea it even has the word theory because its still a theory
Solar system planets circle sun Galileo, Copernicus
Still a theory
Wegener's continental drift
Still a theory
The spiral helix form of DNA Crick and Watson
Still a theory
And many more.
Still theories
A fact or something indisputably true is only obtained trough direct objective observation.
Usually using tools to help us say a measuring tool to measure a piece of string anyone that measures the piece of string with that tool will see that the string is x uits long. So its a fact that that string is x units long.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 420 by Faith, posted 10-15-2013 10:47 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 424 by Faith, posted 10-15-2013 11:50 PM frako has replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(1)
Message 425 of 457 (708891)
10-16-2013 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 424 by Faith
10-15-2013 11:50 PM


Re: Reasons why this thread is due for Summary
All of them are about things we CAN observe
Naw its just that when we do observe it you say silly things like unicellular organisms have their own peculiar thingy going on. But yea if noone sees a crime then the crime dint happen no matter what evidence you find.
All you have to do is keep rearranging the props imaginatively whenever the theory is challenged because the whole thing is nothing but mental hooha.
No all you need to do to prove it wrong is find a bunny rabbit in the pre Cambrian era but you cant and invent silly notions of what you think science is redefine terms to suit you, Invent imaginary genetic barriers even though you said mutations happen ie any piece of the genome can change any time. You deny increasing diversity by mutation even though ts pretty clear that if you have a genome that is a bit different that adds a different genome to the population increasing diversity, if you are shown evidence that has no other explanation then common descent you dont understand that yea does not compute with a religious mind.....
NOT true of gravity which any of us can test for ourselves, who cares about Mercury,
LOL yea and its the scientists who are not doing their job right who cares about mercury LOL
So you dont buy atomic theory either its kind of hard to test by yourself the equipment is expensive. Unless you claim you cant test change in the genome.
The ToE does absolutely nothing but sit there and dictate to us how we are supposed to understand things we couldn't possibly observe
So every murderer that ha-sent been witnessed murdering should go free because he wasn't observed.
And creation we couldn't possibly have observed creation, all we have is a book written in the bronze age that claims that the world was made in 7 days. How can we be sure Moses wasnt tripping on shrooms when he wrote it. We cant test it for ourselves.
The ToE does absolutely nothing but sit there and dictate to us how we are supposed to understand things we couldn't possibly observe, that nobody has ever seen, that we can't make use of in any way, that doesn't "work" at all in the sense the other "theories" do, it just sits there and sucks a ton of science into it to no purpose whatever, pretends to be the cause of medical breakthroughs when it isn't, and so on,. It's a big fat lie and usurper of science
Yea and the best person to judge this is someone that occasionally looked at the theory while he was an atheist. Not the thousands of scientists who actually did the work, and studied the subject.
AND YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHY PEOPLE SAY THIS SORT OF THING ABOUT THE ToE. It's the truth but you can't see it. You can't see why half of your "scientific" observations are just wishful nonsense and the rest are chewed up by theory so they don't make sense out of anything and someday they all WILL come back to bite you. Oh well, oh well, oh well.
Yea well its currently the best explanation we have and it do sent look like its about to change SINCE EVERY PIECE OF EVIDENCE AGREES WITH IT, you not understanding it or wishing it away does not change that. But even if the TOE would get disprove tomorrow its no big deal theories get proven wrong all the time its how we learn. What i do know is that creationism or events similar to the bible creation story WILL NEVER BE RAISED TO THE STATUS OF A WORKING SCIENTIFIC THEORY. Why because they have been proven wrong numerous of times while evolution still hasn't been.
Even the courts agree Creationism isnt science, Intelligent design is creationism in desquise, what is it called now teach the controversy LOL what controversy, what god made the universe
Look you might think that TOE is unproven and whatnot but the good thing is your opinion does not matter, its a SCIENCE topic so scientists get to vote electricians, park rangers, sanitation engineers..... dont get a vote. Your opinions dont matter. But People like you dont care about that and scream their opinions in front of schools, courthouses and the like, you decreasing the number of future scientists and keeping actual scientists away from their work so they can try to explain to the media why you are wrong even though it seems that allot of people are incapable of understanding why they are wrong.
Look creationism is the same as homoeopathy you are homoeopaths trying to prove medicine wrong and replacing it with homoeopathy.
Your arguments are insane
Yea well mutations happen (changes in the genome anything about it can change any time) but those changes can never amount to loads of changes because of um a gentic barrier of some sort.
When i point out numerous unicellular examples of changes beneficial mutations and what not oh thats well um unicellular beings are different somehow duno how or why i just know it in my hart that they are. Still haven't gotten the answer do they remain this different if they become multicellular organisms
I show you evidence that is only explainable in the light of TOE um well i dont understand that so i wont talk about it.
.....
Just tell the truth you will never believe in evolution no matter what because your religion prohibits it. Its that simple and its true or suffer the wrath of your god thau shall not bare false witness its a commandment look it up it means dont lie.
Its ok i understand religion is a powerful tool that can make you believe or deny anything its not your fault

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 424 by Faith, posted 10-15-2013 11:50 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 426 by Coyote, posted 10-16-2013 1:02 AM frako has replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 430 of 457 (708903)
10-16-2013 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 426 by Coyote
10-16-2013 1:02 AM


Re: Reasons why this thread is due for Summary
But it is!
The human mind is the most powerful and wonderful thing we have, and it is sad to see one wasted on myth, nonsense, and delusion.
To deny reality in the face of overwhelming evidence is to waste and deny that wonderful mind. I can't imagine any deity that would be impressed by that.
Yes it is sad but its not his fault, its religions. There are many biological facts religion uses to brainwash their members. Like our instinct to belong to a community, in every religion if you turn away from it you loose the support of the community even become a threat to that community no one wants that. It also appels to our first and second brain responsible for emotion hey override our newest layer because even if it sounds reasonable it feels wrong. It also uses fear one of our strongest emotions, it takes away or diminishes the fear of death, removing religion would bring it back and no one wants to be afraid. It also brings a new fear to the table if i don't believe im going to feel pain for a verry long time (hell). Fear keeps agoraphobics inside on a sunny day its a verry strong tool in the arsenal of religion. And just in case some of the programming they did to you might get fixed they make you come back to get an update and reason cleanse every Sunday.
Its about as much his fault as it is a claustrophobic's fault that he has an irrational fear of tight spaces.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 426 by Coyote, posted 10-16-2013 1:02 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 431 by jar, posted 10-16-2013 8:56 AM frako has replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 438 of 457 (708920)
10-16-2013 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 431 by jar
10-16-2013 8:56 AM


Re: A partial summary.
Religious people also contributed to our knowledge and understanding of evolution, global warming, endangered species, germ theory, the big bang, physics, medicine, just about any field you care to mention.
Yes when they strip down their religion to the bare essentials they can function rationally. Yea Jesus is the son of god i know that because it says so in the bible and i also know that the bible is full of myths and anecdotes but that part is true.
How many Catholics do you think actually believe that the bread turned in to Jesus'es flesh and the wine in to his blood. How many do you think shrug it off as just a ritual preformed by the church.
Most religius people actually strip down their religion so fare that they should be called deists its just that their deity has a name.
Yes, there is a Christian Cult of Ignorance but there is also a Conservative Cult of Ignorance and Muslim Cult of Ignorance and Liberal Cult of Ignorance and Atheist Cult of Ignorance and
Yea ignorance is bliss but if you where to put those cults of ignorance on a scale from most ignorant to least, witch cults would rank most ignorant religious cults or secular cults.
The question of why folk deny such things, why they deny evidence does come down to comfort but that is true in many areas. It is human nature to accept the status quo until the pain of not changing becomes greater than the pain of change. That is most often seen today in personal relations; marriages are a great example.
Yea you have women who get beat by their husbands every day but still love them and think they love them. Denying evidence starring them in the face.
In the case of issues we often address here that conflict does devolve to changing the status of the Bible. So called Biblical Christians have a status quo that is based on denying evidence and finding work arounds that allow them to maintain the comfortable fictions. They begin by believing that the Bible is without contradictions even though the very first two books of the Bible are mutually exclusive.
Once you build a belief system that is based on mental dishonesty then denying reality and evidence becomes easy and comfortable.
Yea but its religion that puts them on the path of denying evidence. Its just that some religions found out that if their flocks dont deny reality and substitute it with the bible they are on a slippery slope to deism and atheism. Cutting off the funds to that religion.
But you also have to remember that the flock is not intentionally dishonest or even know that they are. Their program as you can see with Faith wont allow for anything that contradicts their beliefs, its like pushing a square trough a round hole information contradicting their beliefs cant get in. And if you manage to hammer it in it gets distorted or broken.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 431 by jar, posted 10-16-2013 8:56 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 441 by jar, posted 10-16-2013 11:47 AM frako has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024